Talk:Vera Bate Lombardi

Who's the daddy?

The article says a number of times she was the illegitimate child of Prince Adolphus (which links here) and he died more than 30 years before she was born. On the other hand, this Prince Adolphus was only 17 when she was born, while her mother was 32 (not impossible, but...?).
And it refers to him as her true father, when the connection is only alleged. Anyone know the truth of it? Swanny18 (talk) 22:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Theres been no reply to this (just a half-baked attempt to fix the page) so I’m taking an axe to it.

The allegation that this Adolphus was her father is reliant on one source, but it is a source. So it's at least verifiable, even if the truth is debatable, so we should go with that.

But if there was an affair, it’s arguable who seduced who (the 17 year old Adolphus or the 32 year old Rosa) and even more debatable whether he was Lombardi’s father (did he ever acknowledge her? They usually do, if it’s true).

So the section needs editing to make it clear its an allegation, if it stays at all. Swanny18 (talk) 20:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

(As an update: This was fixed, after a fashion, at the end of August. Swanny18 (talk) 17:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC))

Tags

This article was tagged for copyediting, neutrality, and having no lead section. The last is self-explanatory, but there is nothing here, or on the page, or in the edit history, to justify the other two: So I've deleted them.
And as the article has a lead section now, I've deleted that one too. Swanny18 (talk) 17:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality

Portions of this article are more an attack on Coco Chanel than biography of Lombardi. For example, this statement:

"Coco Chanel hid the truth of her tragic and painful family history, and superimposed a bitter, icy and snobbish version of Vera's glamorous persona throughout her life. Chanel's authentic core self-value was never founded, as her personal identity had been tragically dehumanized and shamed as an orphan."

That may or may not be true, but it's unprovable speculation and only peripherally relevant to Lombardi's biography. Colonies Chris (talk) 11:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I've removed that particular portion, but the whole section really needs revising to be more cool and neutral; the tone at the moment is of hero-worshipping Lombardi and demonising Chanel. Colonies Chris (talk) 15:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Copyright violation

Compare the first edit of this article with the article it's copied from. Note the messed up references due to copying and sloppy editing. Bridget Bate Tichenor was similarly copied from another article years earlier. The source text in both cases is attributed to Zachary Selig. Major editors of both articles are also major editors of Selig's article (amongst others). It's not clear if they're sock puppets of Selig's or fans, but something is rotten. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 16:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you that it must have been definitely a copyvio when it was created. I don't think the changes since then are enough to free it from that, so I've tagged it. Colonies Chris (talk) 17:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Caramba! So what happens now? Swanny18 (talk) 23:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

To retain the article, it'll have to be rewritten to eliminate the copyright violation. (There's guidance on what's required on a link from the copyvio notice - essentially, it's OK to retain the facts from the copyrighted bio, as long as they're integrated into an article that isn't just lifted and rephrased a bit from the copyrighted material; and the source has to be properly acknowledged.) The article as it stands does have other sources, so this may be achievable. Colonies Chris (talk) 09:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Just a thought, but if this page is suspect, what about the Bridget Bate Tichenor or Rosa Frederica Baring FitzGeorge pages? also, I wrote Frederick Blantford Bate, using a lot of material from BBT; is that a copyvio also?

OTOH, the first edit here was 27 Jan 2010, but the date on the "Scribd" page is 18 Feb 2010, so do we know which is copied from which? Swanny18 (talk) 23:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Both of those articles were originally COPYVIO: [1] (presumably from [2]) [3]. Pedro Friedeberg was originally COPYVIO [4] but has since been stubbed. In addition to COPYVIO, I'm now convinced that this is the work of Zachary Selig himself (the COPYVIO still has to be assumed, I think). He's been making WP:COI edits for a long time now.[5] [6] [7] using the names Relaxatiallc (he owns a company called Relaxatia LLC), Tcmtoo, Muccassassina, Clitiunno, Chimmaera, and a few IPs. And of course he edits his own article. All that said, I don't see anything to show that he's definitely acting in bad faith at any point. I find his use of sockpuppets more odd than anything else.

And yes, there can be little doubt that the copying was to WP, not from it. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 04:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Tcmtoo has removed the copyvio notice and recreated the article. I've reinstated the notice and let him know on his talk page the proper way to resolve a copyvio issue. Colonies Chris (talk) 09:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

(Resolution: To clarify this, the article was deleted and re-written on 20 November 2011 by User:Moonriddengirl in order to purge the copyright violation. The article's revision history is from that point, and the comments above pre-date the current version of the article.-- Note left by Swanny18 (talk) 12:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Couldn't find in source?

I reverted this edit because it broke the reference list in the article and was trying to restore what information I could using proper formatting, but I cannot verify the information referenced to Sleeping with the Enemy. Page 41 is viewable for me in Google preview, and it does not mention the Marchioness of Cambridge or any of her relatives. Page 34 discusses the Marchioness and her relatives, but it doesn't mention King George VII. I'm a bit puzzled. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello Moonriddengirl: I would like to do some work on this entry. I have a copy of Vahughn's book and am very familiar with its contents and subject matter. For the Marchioness of Cambridge's ancestry, I used an online source which specializes in the hereditary lineage of British aristocratic families. Betempte (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Then you have to cite the source you used. You have put back "George VII" - he is not mentioned in Sleeping with the Enemy at page 34. Please don't put information in without citing your source for it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm finding more unsupported material. For instance, the article was edited to indicate she died after a long illness. This may be true, but the source doesn't say so: [8]. We need sources. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Editing issues

I welcome members of the Wiki community to supply other source material for the Lombardi biography. I tried to incorporate the work of the previous editor, Moonriddengirl into my editing...the information of Lombardi's death was found in Hal Vaughn's book, p. 192---the phrase "long illness," is open to question, as Vaughn states, Lombardi died of a "severe illness," the nature of which is not described. I'd have to check back, but the phrase "long illness," was Moonriddengirl's own wording, which I retained in my edit. I would then conclude that she herself had her own source material which is unspecified. I felt that the whole biographical entry, while containing salient pieces of information on Lombardi's life, called for re-structuring, i.e. title headings more reflective of a summary of the following section, and a logical, general continuity as to time and events. I'm going to check my page number citations to make sure the page numbers are accurate. If there are errors, I definitely want to fix that and appreciate having that brought to my attention. Betempte (talk) 20:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

This is the version as I had edited it. It says only "Lombardi herself died in Rome in 1948". That language was unchanged until your edit here: [9]. You altered those words to read "Lombardi herself died in Rome of a severe illness in 1948." (I don't see any sign the article ever said she had a "long illness"; I'm afraid I mischaracterized it above.) If Vaughan states she died of a severe illness, Vaughan must be cited for that. The source currently cited gives no indication of how she died. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Rosa Frederica (Baring) FitzGeorge

It is clear from a study of the divorce papers at The National Archives, Kew [J77/327 C527592], that many statements about Rosa Frederica Baring FitzGeorge (1854-1927) and her daughter Vera Bate Lombardi (died 1948) in articles on the Internet, in Wikipedia and in Ancestry.com, are far from correct.

The sworn Petition of Rosa Baring’s first husband, Frank Wigsell Arkwright, dated 20 October 1884 stated that there were two children of his marriage to Rosa: Esme Francis Wigsell Arkwright, born 7 May 1882, and Vera Nina Arkwright, born 11 August 1883.

1. Esme Francis Wigsell Arkwright was, according to the 1891 Census [RG12/585-26-2], born at 26 Hans Place, London. In 1891 he was aged 8 and living with his father at Sanderstead. His birth was registered at Chelsea in the June Quarter of 1882 [GRO Birth Indexes 1a 370].

2. Vera Nina Arkwright, was, according to the 1891 Census [RG12/932-69-9], born at London. In 1891 she was aged 7 and living with her Baring grandparents at Norman Court. Her birth was registered (as ‘Female Arkwright’) at Kensington in the September Quarter of 1883 [GRO indexes 1a 172].

The daughter Vera Nina Arkwright was thus not born in 1885 and it is highly unlikely that she was the daughter of Prince Adolphus of Teck (born 13 August 1868) who would have been only a few months past his fourteenth birthday at the time of her conception (and not seventeen as variously stated).

Frank Arkwright’s Petition for Divorce in which he accused Rosa of frequently committing adultery (at places and on dates specified) with Lieutenant Colonel George FitzGeorge, the Co-Respondent (on whom notice of the proceedings would have been served and who was legally represented), names the children and gives their dates of birth. The Divorce proceedings were also widely reported in the national and local press. That George FitzGeorge was, at the time of his marriage to Rosa Arkwright a year later (28 November 1885) not aware that his future wife had been previously married and was the mother of two children, is thus not correct.

Frank Arkwright petitioned for custody of the children. Both Rosa and George FitzGeorge denied adultery but did not appear in Court to defend the suit, being represented by the same solicitors. Rosa’s initial costs of £12-4-8 were paid by Frank Arkwright. The marriage was dissolved by a Decree Nisi on 5 March 1885 which was made Absolute on 27 October 1885. The Court ordered that George FitzGeorge pay the costs of the action and that the children should remain with Frank Arkwright until further Order.

It is thus clear that Rosa FitzGeorge did not ‘abandon’ her children as stated in the articles. Rosa being the ‘guilty party’ in the action, the children were initially placed in the care of Frank Arkwright, but on 4 May 1886 the Court ordered that Vera Nina be placed in the custody of her grandmother (and Rosa’s mother) Elizabeth Baring as had been Agreed on 19 April 1886.

Frank Arkwright then applied for permission to vary the terms of his Marriage Settlement with Rosa Baring dated 27 August 1878. After various delays a Variation was agreed by the Trustees of the Settlement and this was confirmed by the Court on 8 June 1886 which ordered that £200 per annum be paid to Rosa from the income arising from the Trust Fund, the remainder being placed in trust for the children. Rosa’s power to appoint Trustees was cancelled. On 14 August 1886 George FitzGeorge was ordered to pay Frank Arkwright’s costs of £56-1-9.

Frank Arkwright died on 13 March 1893 (leaving a Personal Estate of £10,217-14-8) and on 7 August 1893 his Executors and Vera’s Guardians were involved in further discussions about his Marriage Settlement and the Trustees were restrained from dealing in the property. On 26 February 1894 the Court ordered that Vera be represented in the proceedings and on 20 April 1894 it noted that she had (on 17 April 1894) elected Elizabeth Baring to be her Guardian. On 13 July 1894 the Court ordered that Rosa Arkwright also be at liberty to intervene in the proceedings and her solicitors duly filed an Intervention.

On 13 & 14 May 1895 the Court ordered that a Report of the Registrar on a Variation of the Settlement be confirmed to take effect from 14 May 1895, the costs of all the parties being paid out of the income arising since 14 May 1895 from a sum of £10,000 brought into Settlement by the late Petitioner (Frank Arkwright). The costs of the Trustees and Guardians were filed 1 August 1895. There is no further document on the Divorce file.

Elizabeth Baring, Vera Nina’s grandmother, died at Norman Court on 6 November 1897 (leaving a Personal Estate of £518-1-1) and Elizabeth’s husband, William Henry Baring, died at Norman Court on 10 June 1906 (leaving a Personal Estate of £84,874-18-11). Their wills may throw further light on the matter.

Vera Nina Arkwright has not been found in England in the 1901 and 1911 census returns and it is not clear where she was living in those years (though her US passport applications say that she lived in England from 1884 to 1914). She may be the Miss Vera Arkwright at 17 Connaught Street, South Paddington, in 1915 [Electoral Register, Hyde Park Ward, Division 3, Page 375]. If and when she lived with Lady Margaret Grosvenor (1873-1929), the daughter of the First Duke of Westminster and the wife (from 1894) of the above mentioned Prince Adolphus of Teck (who was created Duke of Teck in 1900 and Marquis of Cambridge in 1917), and if and when she assumed the forenames Sarah Gertrude, as stated in the articles, is not clear.

Vera Nina married Frederick Blantford Bate in Paris, 1 May 1916, in the name Vera Nina Arkwright and later that day applied for a passport using the name Vera Nina Bate. She made her will (following her second marriage to Alberto Lombardi) and it was proved in London in 1949 in the name Vera Nina Lombardi. Although her age in the 1891 census (as given by her grandparents) is correct, Vera thought, or pretended, that she was born later. Her passport applications in 1916 say that she was born 11 August 1885 whilst those made in 1919-21 say that she was born 11 August 1884.

From careful Court arrangements outlined above it is clear that Vera, her brother and her mother shared the income from the Trust set up by her father. After her mother’s death in 1927 she would have shared the balance of the Trust with her brother until he died in 1934. She may have received other funds under the wills of her father and grandfather. Vera’s limited administration (with will) was granted in London, 21 March 1949 [Effects £4.444-9-9], to her cousin Evelyn Bingham Baring (1893-1966) a Director of Baring Brothers & Co and the son of her mother’s brother, William Bingham Baring (1859-1916), as attorney for Alberto Lombardi.

The sensational stories of a royal illegitimacy and cover-up thus have no basis in fact. It is equally clear that Vera Nina Bate Lombardi (1883-1948) and her daughter Bridget Bate Tichenor (1917-1990), both of whom have biographies on Wikipedia, had no royal descent through the FitzGeorge connection. AnthonyCamp (talk) 11:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC).

Multiple issues (June 2015)

This article (which was recently completely rewritten: viz from this to this) appears to comprehensively breach WP Guidelines; I believe it lacks Verifiability, is full of original research, lacks a neutral point of view and is something WP is not; it reads like a personal essay and is full of random and irrelevant material.
The matter has been raised with editor responsible (see here) but I would benefit from opinion by someone more familiar with biographical articles. Swanny18 (talk) 11:51, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Skimming quickly over the article, you seem to be right. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

As I said in reply to your post on my talk page, if there are specific instances where you think I have breached any guideline, please point them out to me and I will try to address your concerns. Saying that there is a 'comprehensive breach' or that the article is 'full of irrelevant material' is not very helpful (Some of this irrelevant material - or what I suspect you think is irrelevant - actually appears in other Wikipedia articles). The overall structure of the article (in terms of main headings) is pretty much the same as before I did any editing. I am happy to go through the article literally sentence by sentence, if that is what is required. Since you are an expert in these editorial issues, this would be of great help to me. After all, Wikipedia is meant to be collaborative (I think). I am sure that with your help we can develop a good article. Nas gord (talk) 17:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

'Skimming over' and saying 'you seem to be right' doesn't get me very far. If you can point to specific wording that you have a problem with that would be helpful.Nas gord (talk) 17:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but I don't really want to get too heavily involved in cleanup of this specific article, which is long and about a topic I know little about. The problems I see are:

1. Much of the article is unsourced. Where does the information come from? You must cite your sources.
2. There seems to be much original research. For example, the section "The official evidence - The 1891 Census" seems to be original research based on primary sources. We need a professional scholar or journalist to examine the evidence, draw conclusions from them, and then find a publisher who accept their research. Once that gets published, we can then report on it. As an encyclopedia, we do not do research of our own.
3. Asking questions is bad form. In "Other matters requiring explanation - What happened in 1885?" (which is, itself, a question), the article asks, "Is it possible that what stood between the Tecks and the throne of England was a little baby girl?" Articles should state authoritative facts, not make suppositions or guesses.

WP:CCPOL should help explain these issues somewhat. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

As I have said on my talk page, the one specific example you give (about her descent from Andrew Thomson) is not a good one since similar information (about being descended from someone who had an affair with a royal person) is given about Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall. As I said, please explain why this sort of information is relevant in the case of Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, but irrelevant in the case of Lombardi. If you want me to remove this information about Lombardi, should I also remove the similar information from the article about Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, as well?Nas gord (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

That article looks generally well-sourced, but it doesn't matter; we're talking about policy compliance in this article, not that one. You need to add reliable sources and remove your original research. If you can't provide sources for your additions, then we'll have to revert to a version before your edits. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is based on published research by journalists, academics, and other other professionals; it is not based on original research by its own users. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I have asked you for specific examples where you think statements are unsourced or are original research. I asked you this before and your response was that the whole article is wrong (pretty much). Really? All of it? Yet all I ask is that you be specific. Let's start with just one example and take it from there. Shall we start at the beginning of the article and works towards the end? What is your first example of where I have failed to comply with policy? Perhaps as we work through it I will understand what you are getting at and further discussion will be unnecessary. After all, I asked a simple question (about your objection to me mentioning Andrew Thomson) and asked you to explain and you have declined to do so; you have just reverted to generalisations. So let's start with that example. Do you want me to remove the statement about Lombardi's descent from Andrew Thomson? If so, please explain why. Seriously, I cannot understand why such information is relevant in the case of Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, but irrelevant in the case of Lombardi. If you have an explanation then why not give it?Nas gord (talk) 20:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

PS Here is a list of the additional sources I added:

Selig, Zachary, 'Sarah Gertrude Arkwright Fitzgeorge Bate Lombardi Biography', 2011

Good, Victoria, 'The Warren House Tales', Third Millenium, 2014

St. Aubyn, Giles, 'The Royal George', Constable & Co., 1963

Aspinal, A (Ed), 'The Correspondence of George, Prince of Wales, 1770-1812: 1789-1794', Oxford University Press, 1971

'Records of the Hammersley Family', 1894 (in the possession of Sir Andrew Duff-Gordon)

Camp, Anthony, 'Royal Mistresses and Bastards: Fact and Fiction 1714-1936'

Samuel, Henry, 'Winston Churchill "ordered assassination of Mussolini to protect compromising letters"', Daily Telegraph, 2 September 2010

Chadwick, Owen, 'Britain and the Vatican During the Second World War', Cambridge Paperback Library, 1988

Bompard, Paul, 'Did Churchill kill Il Duce?', Times Higher Education, 16 October 1995

Van Vorst, Marie, 'War Letters of an American Woman', New York, 1916

Luciano Garibaldi's 'Mussolini - The Secrets of His Death', Enigma Books, 2004

Frank Joseph's 'Mussolini's War', Helion, 2010Nas gord (talk) 20:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

With regard to the 1891 Census, this is an official register which is publicly available for inspection on payment of a fee (sort of like when you go into a bookshop and buy a book). It is rather like, say, the Electoral Register. I can go into a library, look at a book, extract information from it and then include that information in a Wikipedia article. On another shelf in the same library is the Electoral Register, which is published by the Government. Are you saying that I can put information from a book in a Wikipedia article but not information from the Electoral Register? I think there is a difference between, say, original scientific research, and extracting information from an official source. Are you saying that Wikipedia does not allow any information from official registers to be quoted in Wikipedia articles? I find this hard to believe - but then I am new to this whole business. In my view there is a difference between extracting information from an official register and researching what underlies that information. I do not think that ascertaining an officially recorded fact amounts to carrying out original research.Nas gord (talk) 20:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

OK Nas gord, as you seem unwilling to accept the idea that virtually everything you've added is suspect, I'll spell it out by sections.

Birth: I've already given you this as an example on your talk page (and to be clear, it was me, not NinjaRobotPirate, who brought it up with you; NRP is (I'm guessing)responding to a request for another opinion from the Biography project). You have half-a-dozen statements of "fact", only one referenced. And you still need to explain who it is who finds it "interesting", a published source (in which case you need to cite it) or you (in which case it's Original Research). Also your argument about the Camilla page doesn't really cut it; just because there is dodgy stuff elsewhere doesn't justify you adding it here.

Mothers connections: A couple of dozen "facts", none referenced. You also need to explain the relevance of any of it to Vera Lombardi; your opinion, or someone else's? Otherwise, what is important about her mother's cousin providing a surname for a book by RLS? It's just padding. And the only source in this section at all is to a webpage, which gives no indication of its reliability.

Reputed daughter: Is OK; A couple of statements, both referenced (though if I remember correctly this was in the original article)

L after divorce: A couple of facts, both referenced, but then a piece of speculation (“Several factors...”); Yours, or a published source?

Official evidence: One fact, referenced (using a primary source) then an interpretation (“this is...”) followed by an analysis (“The fact that...”) which we are specifically told not to do.

A&R, did they know each other?: All unreferenced speculation

A&R, were they..?: One (unreferenced) fact (“Hugh Hammersley died...”) followed by speculation (“RB's mother...”) and something “Interesting”

A&R, Did they..?: More unreferenced speculation

RB's motive: Still more speculation; one reference at the end. Does that support the entire paragraph, or just the last sentence?

Other matters: Yet more speculation, and several rhetorical questions. Whose are they, and whose are the answers given? And, of what relevance is this to Lombardi?

Hammersleys: A lengthy digression about the Hammersley's financial affairs. Why is it here?

L's place in society: An outline of her connections is relevant (though unreferenced) but then a statement of opinion (“This connection is unlikely to have counted....”) isn't, and nor is “the question then becomes...”. Whose case is being made here?

L's status..opposing views: I've already pointed out the breach of our Neutrality policy. Opposing views should simply be stated and cited, without added value.

WWI: A reasonable opening paragraph (tho' unreferenced) but then three lengthy and not particularly relevant quotations. See WP:QUOTE on avoiding overuse.

Marriage: better referenced, though a speculation about who Albert Lombardi was shouldn't be there. Either establish who he is, or (if the information is pending) reduce it to an edit note for inclusion later.

Coco Chanel: If I remember correctly this was in the original, so I shouldn't be on your case about any problems here.

WWII: ditto, though there's a lengthy digression about D'Arcy Osborne; if L wasn't involved in his actiivities, it's irrelevant.

Churchill/Mussolini correspondence: This bit takes the biscuit! The only source for any of this is an article that says the author in question (who may be “celebrated and respected” but is also described as “hard-line right-wing” and “revisionist”) supports these theories “with implied references to second or third hand reports which may or may not exist”. And then you have the gall to say there is no evidence that Lombardi was involved in any of it, but despite that suggest the possibility (again stating there is no evidence) that Churchill had her assassinated! If he was still alive you would have us up to our ears in a libel case!

Please note, this is not an exhaustive or definitive list of the problems. You asked for specifics, and (assuming good faith rather than trolling on your part) I've given them.

And please also note, this is not up for discussion. The page is in breach of WP guidelines and if it isn't fixed (ie comprehensively trimmed, and properly referenced) it will (as NRP said) have to be reverted to the version before you started on it. Swanny18 (talk) 21:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

'Not up for discussion'. I was wondering how long it would take you to get there - because that was where you were clearly heading. Is it a good idea to have someone with such an attitude involved in Wikipedia? Personally, I don't think so (because Wikipedia is supposed to involve people working together and helping each other). You say 'you seem unwilling to accept the idea that virtually everything you've added is suspect, I'll spell it out by sections'. This is a falsehood. I have said repeatedly that I am happy to address any concerns anyone might have. I only asked that you be specific. I will look at the points you have raised (if given time) but I can see that you are just itching to trash the whole thing. You say that the list is not exhaustive and then say that you have given specifics. But clearly, you haven't because your list is not exhaustive: you have given some examples, that is all. How can I address a concern if you won't tell me what it is? I get the impression you are trying to create an argument - if you don't mind me saying so. For instance, you say 'just because there is dodgy stuff elsewhere doesn't justify you adding it here'. Well, the logical question here is 'So why are you picking on this article?' Will you 'raise Cain' about the Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall article - or any other 'dodgy'article? I suspect not. But why not? I am guessing that the simple fact is that you have now got yourself into an argument and you are determined not to lose it. I must admit that I didn't think the literally the first article that I edited on Wikipedia would result in massive bullying. What a pity. Perhaps others would like to comment on your bullying conduct.Nas gord (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

PS With reference to the Churchill/Mussolini correspondence you say I have only cited one source. I have actually cited three (two in general terms). However, since you raise the issue I will be quite happy to quote the German intercepts which emerged in the 1970s. I am afraid it is absolutely beyond question that the correspondence took place. I think it is relevant here because Lombardi stands out by a mile as the obvious person in the middle. The facts give rise to an obvious question. Can we state these facts? Can we ask the question? Are questions never posed on Wikipedia? I am quite happy to be corrected on this point.Nas gord (talk) 22:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

PPS Can I ask for someone else to take over this discussion (on your side) - or to have some sort of mediation. You have already admitted that you know nothing about biography (You said 'I would benefit from opinion by someone more familiar with biographical articles'). It is also clear that you know absolutely nothing about this specific subject matter. Therefore, your only qualification for intervening was your 'editorial skills'. But you have now said that you are not prepared to discuss this issue either (You said 'And please also note, this is not up for discussion.'). So, if you know nothing about biographical articles, know nothing of the subject and are not prepared to discuss (help me with) editorial issues, why are you involving yourself at all?217.43.37.217 (talk) 22:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a few forms of dispute resolution. The dispute resolution noticeboard is a neutral place where you can make you case. It's staffed by volunteers, and the decisions are nonbinding. Basically, it's a place where uninvolved editors try to help people find a solution. If that fails, there's Requests for mediation. There are a few other places, too, including policy noticeboards (reliable sources noticeboard, original research noticeboard, etc). Those are more oriented toward resolution of major disputes, but they can help to resolve questions about policy. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

An arbitrary break

I have amended the introductory and 'Birth' sections. Are these now acceptable to you Swanny18? If so I will move onto the next section.Nas gord (talk) 10:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I have made quite a number of amendments. Comments will be welcomed.Nas gord (talk) 15:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Nas gord: If you still want my opinion I'd say your recent changes are an improvement; you have more references, and the tone is more encyclopaedic.

For the Introduction, it's OK, but unless you are wanting to make her illegitimacy the defining feature of her life you could do worse than use the format used by the admin who wrote the original draft.

For the Birth section; if you still want to make the Andrew Thomson connection, try “She was, through her maternal grandparents, the 5th generation descendant of Andrew Thomson, reputed to be the lover of Anna, Empress of Russia (1693-1740)”; its more succint.

Her names, though; Vera and Nina have a number of meanings. Do you have evidence that these in particular were intended by her parents? Or that they had particular significance or her? If not, it's best left out.

Similarly, Mothers connections: unless any of these people had some significant impact on Lombardi's life, it's irrelevant. She's described as a socialite; “well-connected” goes without saying.

Reputed daughter; your Madsen quote is OK, but then you added your interpretation, which isn't (as I said before). A quote should be used to emphasize a point made, or to provide the exact wording so there is no doubt. If you then have to tell "what the author is saying", then something's wrong somewhere.

The rest of the stuff down to Lombardi's status.. reads better, but simply lacks relevance. If you are trying to make a case against Rosa Baring for having sex with a minor, (which I'm guessing was illegal even in Victorian times) it's still all circumstantial. His parents never preferred charges, did they? Or did he ever acknowledge the child? And I hadn't twigged until now; is it Chanel's biographers who are making this claim, not Lombardi's? How reliable is that?

As for the WWII section, again it doesn't matter that her second cousin was plotting to overthrow Hitler, or that the son of another second cousin tried to kill Rommel; if there's no evidence Lombardi was involved, it shouldn't be here.

Likewise the Churchill/Mussolini correspondence. The article doesn't need you to add German transcripts, it needs evidence of Lombardi's involvement ( for which you've said flat out there is none) If you feel there is hard evidence this correspondence exists, (and is something more than a “wish you were here” postcard from Chartwell) then write an article on it; if you feel here is a controversy that has notability, write an account (just make sure it satisfies a neutral point of view). But it doesn't belong here. Swanny18 (talk) 18:31, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Suspect Sources for Vera's Birth

The two books cited in this article as sources for information about the birth and parentage of Vera Bate Lombardi need investigation. Both Axel Madsen (1930-2007) in his Chanel: a woman of her own (1991) and Hal Vaughan (1928-2013) in his Sleeping with the enemy: Coco Chanel’s secret war (2011), seem to rely only on the allegations of Vera’s daughter Bridget Bate Tichenor (1917-1990). Bridget was a surrealist painter in the ‘magic realism school’ and had, it seems to me, little interest in factual truth. It is impossible to consider her a reliable witness. She had been estranged from her mother since 1939 and had moved to a reclusive life in Mexico in 1953. She considered her mother a ‘monster’ and told many stories about her to a spiritist protégé whom she met in 1971. Amongst these stories was the suggestion that she (Bridget, born in 1917) was the daughter of Coco Chanel and the Duke of Westminster (who did not meet until 1923), that her mother (Vera Arkwright, born in 1883) used the name Sarah Gertrude Arkwright and was the ‘surrogate child’ of the Duchess of Westminster, that Vera was descended from King George III and was either the daughter of Rosa Baring by George FitzGeorge (Rosa’s second husband) or by Prince Adolphus of Teck (then just fourteen), that Rosa had abandoned her children (born in 1882 and 1883) by her first husband Frank Arkwright and that there was a royal ‘cover up’ when they divorced in 1884-5, and so forth. These allegations were made known by Bridget’s protégé after her death in 1990 but none, so far as I have been able to discover, has been corroborated from other sources. The statements cannot be dignified as ‘family tradition’ and they seem to have been unknown to anyone other than the protégé until publication.

Vera frequently gave false information about her date of birth and the allegations that Prince Adolphus was her father were made by her daughter in the belief that Vera was not born until 1885 (when Prince Adolphus would have been 16 or 17) whereas she was born in 1883 when he was just 14. The 1884-5 divorce papers of Vera’s parents Frank Arkwright and Rosa Baring show that their marriage settlement was openly discussed in court, its trustees were closely involved, and after Frank’s death in March 1893, his executors were also involved. By a deed of separation made prior to the divorce the two children had been placed with Rosa Arkwright, Frank having access, but Rosa was disinclined to allow access and when it was found that she was committing adultery with George FitzGeorge, divorce proceedings were instituted in October 1884. The children were as a result placed with their father who, under the terms of his marriage settlement, was providing for their upkeep. The divorce was no quickly hushed-up matter and various extensions of time were given so that those affected might be represented and bring forward information which would safeguard the future income and welfare of the children. It was not until 4 May 1886 that it was ordered that Vera be placed, by mutual agreement, in the care of Rosa’s mother, Elizabeth Baring. Affidavits were filed as late as April 1894 (following Frank’s death) relating to the child’s election of Elizabeth Baring as her testamentary guardian ad litam. The entry in the 1891 census showing Vera as the ‘granddaughter adopted’ of Elizabeth Baring’s husband is in no way remarkable and should not be used to suggest that Vera was illegitimate. 11:19, 27 June 2015 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnthonyCamp (talk • contribs) AnthonyCamp (talk) 11:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC).

Thank you for your comments. As you might have noticed this article has just had a lengthy discussion and a (terminated) re-write on this issue.

On the subject of the allegations that Lombardi was an illegitimate child of royalty, the position here is that WP is not the venue for arguing over the truth of such allegations; the threshold here is to accept that which is verifiable. The conclusion before was that the article does not need a lengthy opinion piece trying to prove the truth of these allegations; equally it does not need one trying to disprove them.

In answer to your question, If you feel Madsen and Vaughan are unreliable sources, as defined in our guideline on the subject you can of course make a case at the forum there; but I would suggest published works by authors who themselves seem notable enough for articles here are likely to be seen as reliable.

If you feel these authors have been misrepresented, then you are also at liberty to edit the text to better reflect their opinions and views.

But if you feel they are simply wrong, the remedy is not to have their stuff removed, but to add, from equally reliable sources, information presenting the opposing view. And this needs to be done in the light of our policy on maintaining a neutral point of view.

This is also, in the scheme of things, a relatively minor issue; it should not occupy more than a paragraph, maybe only a sentence or two. It could be enough to simply say “It is alleged by some sources that Vera Lombardi was the illegitimate child of Rosa Baring by Prince Adolphus (sources), but others dispute this (sources)”

What is the history of this, anyway? Were these allegations circulating when she was alive? Or when her (presumed) parents were alive? Or is this just something that's cropped up recently? Regards, Swanny18 (talk) 18:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments but I think that I am aware of the points you mention. The problem with the biographical articles on Wikipedia is that many of the 'approved' sources are fourth-rate or out-dated popular biographies of little value (i.e. they do not cite their sources) and the situation is made worse by the 'adopt an ancestor' culture of many modern genealogists. So far as I am aware nobody had heard of these claims until the two books mentioned were published and, although I may be wrong, I believe that the allegations are just modern invention. By drawing attention to them here, I had hoped that someone might come forward to prove me right or wrong. AnthonyCamp (talk) 18:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC).

bisexuality

Tillar J Mazzeo says that, according to Chanel's boyfriend von Dincklage, Coco Chanel was Lombardi's lesbian lover. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.12.104 (talk) 17:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC)